Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T05:23:03.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of an Audience on the Gakel-Call and Other Frustration Behaviours in the Laying Hen (Gallus Gallus Domesticus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

P H Zimmerman ,
A Lundberg ,
L J Keeling  and
P Koene
P H Zimmerman*
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Ethology Group, Wageningen University, P O Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands
A Lundberg
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P O Box 234, SE-532 23 Skara, Sweden
L J Keeling
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Department of Animal Environment and Health, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P O Box 234, SE-532 23 Skara, Sweden
P Koene
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Ethology Group, Wageningen University, P O Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: University of Bristol, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, Langford House, Langford, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK; p.h.zimmerman@bristol.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

When thwarted in a behaviour, laying hens show an increase in stereotyped pacing, displacement preening and a specific vocalisation known as the ‘gakel-call’. How these behaviours, which might serve as indicators of welfare, are influenced by social factors is not yet known. In this study, we investigated the effect of an audience (another bird or a human) on the expression of the gakel-call and other behaviours indicating frustration. Twenty-four Lohman Brown hens were trained to gain free access to food in a test cage. Sixteen hens were used as test birds and eight as non-test audience birds. The food-deprived test hens were tested for 15 min in a non-thwarting situation (food freely available) and for 15 min in a thwarting situation (food covered but visible). For both situations we investigated four different treatments: no audience in the adjacent cage; a non-thwarted audience bird in the adjacent cage; a thwarted audience bird in the adjacent cage; and finally a human audience. The durations of stereotyped pacing and displacement preening were significantly higher in test birds during thwarting than during non-thwarting; thwarted birds also gave significantly more gakel-calls compared to non-thwarted birds. The test birds, and also the audience birds, gave more gakel-calls when thwarted in the presence of a thwarted conspecific than when in the presence of a non-thwarted bird, but there were no significant differences in stereotyped pacing or displacement preening, which are usually associated with frustration. In conclusion, this study supports the view that the gakel-call signals frustration in laying hens. Furthermore, the state of the audience influences the occurrence of gakel-calls in thwarted hens. Thus, when using the gakel-call as a welfare-indicator, the social aspects of the vocal expression of frustration in laying hens should not be overlooked.

Keywords

animal welfareaudiencefrustrationlaying henssocial behaviourvocalisations
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , August 2003 , pp. 315 - 326
Copyright
© 2003 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amsel, A 1992 Frustration Theory: An Analysis of Dispositional Learning and Memory. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäumer, E 1962 Lebensart des Haushuhns, dritter Teil — über seine Laute und allgemeine Ergänzungen. Zeitung für Tierpsychologie 19: 394–416 [Title translation: Behaviour of the chicken, Part 3 — On its vocalisations and general comments]Google Scholar
Clayton, D A 1978 Socially facilitated behavior. Quarterly Review of Biology 53: 373–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collias, N E 1987 The vocal repertoire of the Red Junglefowl: a spectrographic classification and the code of communication. The Condor 89: 510–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H 1992 Reactions of poultry to human beings. In: Zayan, R and Dantzer, R (eds) Social Stress in Domestic Animals pp 121–131. Kluwer Academic Press: Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Wood-Gush, D G M 1971 Frustration and aggression in the domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour 19: 500–504CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, I J H and Wood-Gush, D G M 1972a An analysis of displacement preening in the domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour 20: 68–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H and Wood-Gush, D G M 1972b Thwarting of feeding behaviour in the domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour 20: 444–445CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, I J H and Wood-Gush, D G M 1974 The effect of a rauwolfia tranquillizer on stereotyped movements in frustrated domestic fowl. Applied Animal Ethology 1: 67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, C S and Marler, P 1991 On the use of video images as social stimuli in birds: audience effects on alarm calling. Animal Behaviour 41: 17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, C S and Marler, P 1992 Female appearance as a factor in the responsiveness of male chickens during anti-predator behavior and courtship. Animal Behaviour 43: 137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, C S and Marler, P 1994 Food calling and audience effects in male chickens, Gallus gallus: their relationships to food availability, courtship and social facilitation. Animal Behaviour 47: 1159–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, C S, Evans, L and Marler, P 1993a On the meaning of alarm calls: functional reference in an avian vocal system. Animal Behaviour 46: 23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, C S, Macedonia, J M and Marler, P 1993b Effects of apparent size and speed on the response of chickens, Gallus gallus, to computer-generated simulations of aerial predators. Animal Behaviour 46: 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D and Duncan, I J H 1998 ‘Pleasures’, ‘pains’ and animal welfare: toward a natural history of affect. Animal Welfare 7: 383–396Google Scholar
Gyger, M and Marler, P 1988 Food calling in the domestic fowl, Gallus gallus: the role of external referents and deception. Animal Behaviour 36: 258–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gyger, M, Karakashian, S and Marler, P 1986 Avian alarm calling: is there an audience effect? Animal Behaviour 34: 1570–1572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O 1983 Headshaking in fowls: the effect of environmental stimuli. Applied Animal Ethology 11: 45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 1989 Chronic stressors, tonic immobility and leukocytic responses in the domestic fowl. Physiology & Behavior 46: 439–442CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, R B 1993 Reduction of the domestic chick's fear of human beings by regular handling and related treatments. Animal Behaviour 46: 991–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R B 1994 Regular handling and the domestic chick's fear of human beings: generalisation of response. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 42: 129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koene, P and Wiepkema, P R 1991 Pre-dustbath vocalizations as an indicator of need in domestic hens. In: Böhnke, E and Molkenthin, V (eds) Alternatives in Animal Husbandry pp 95–103. Agrarkultur Verlag: Witzenhausen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Konishi, M 1963 The role of auditory feedback in the vocal behavior of the domestic fowl. Zeitung für Tierpsycholologie 40: 349–367Google Scholar
Kruijt, J P 1964 Ontogeny of social behaviour in Burmese red junglefowl (Gallus gallus spadiceus). Behaviour 12 (Suppl)Google Scholar
McBride, G, Parer, I P and Foenander, F 1969 The social organization and behaviour of the feral domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour Monographs 2: 127–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijsser, F M and Hughes, B O 1989 Comparative analysis of pre-laying behavior in battery cages and in three alternative systems. British Poultry Science 30: 747–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C J and Pope, S J 1994 Social learning in small flocks of laying hens. Animal Behaviour 47: 1289–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, C J and Pope, S J 1999 The effects of demonstrator status and prior foraging success on social learning in laying hens. Animal Behaviour 57: 163–171CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SAS Institute 1996 SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, Edn 4, Vol 2 pp 891–997. SAS Institute Inc: Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
Schenk, P M, Meysser, F M and Limpens, H J G 1983 Gakeln als Indikator für Frustration bei Legehennen. KTBL-Schrift 299: 65–80 [Title translation: Gakeln as an indicator of frustration in the laying hen]Google Scholar
Schjelderup-Ebbe, T 1922 Weitere Beiträge zur Sozial- und Individualpsychologie des Haushuhns. Zeitung für Psychologie 92: 60–87 [Title translation: Further contributions on the social and individual psychology of the chicken]Google Scholar
Thornhill, R 1988 The jungle fowl hen's cackle incites male competition. Verhandlungen der Deutschen Zoologischen Gesellschaft 81: 145–154Google Scholar
Wood-Gush, D G M 1971 The Behaviour of the Domestic Fowl. Heinemann Educational Books: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Wood-Gush, D G M 1972 Strain differences in response to sub-optimal stimuli in the fowl. Animal Behaviour 20: 72–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, P H and Koene, P 1998 The effect of frustrative nonreward on vocalisations and behaviour in the laying hen, Gallus gallus domesticus. Behavioural Processes 44: 73–79Google ScholarPubMed
Zimmerman, P H, Koene, P and Van Hooff, J A R A M 2000a Thwarting of behaviour in different contexts and the gakel-call in the laying hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69: 255–264CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimmerman, P H, Koene, P and Van Hooff, J A R A M 2000b The vocal expression of feeding motivation and frustration in the domestic laying hen, Gallus gallus domesticus. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 69: 265–273CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed